SUMER CHAND Vs. SHRI HARISH CHANDER, ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, dated 7th May, 1976, whereby their appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing their ejectment, was maintained.

(2.) At the time of admission of the civil revision, it was contended that the law point has been referred to Full Bench in civil Revision No. 392 of 1974 (Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 1 RCR(Rent) 595 and, consequently, this petition was admitted. Now the Full Bench has decided the said civil revision on 17th December, 1976.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in view of the Full Bench Judgment, the necessary ingredients of sub clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a)(i) have not been pleaded and therefore, the application as liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. In any case, according to the learned counsel, ingredient (c) that the landlord has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area, has not been pleaded, particularly so, when there is evidence on the record that in the year 1962, the landlord has vacated the premises in dispute and again rented it out to the tenant-petitioners.